DOCSLIB.ORG

Objections to Biblical and Church Teaching About Homosexuality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Objections to Biblical and Church Teaching About Homosexuality Objections to Biblical and Church Teaching About Homosexuality Note: The key points and supporting material in the outline below were taken from The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, (Abingdon Press, 2001), by Robert A. J. Gagnon. The book presents the most thorough analysis that we have seen of the biblical texts relating to homosexuality. For additional and user-friendly material on homosexual and same-sex marriage issues, visit Dr. Gagnon's website: www.robgagnon.net A) The Bible only knew of and therefore was only addressing exploitative, pederastic models of homosexuality. Because contemporary expressions of homosexuality can be mutual, non- exploitative, and caring, no one can predict what the Bible would have said. Response: 1. The bible never limits rejection of homosexual conduct to exploitative forms. a. Prohibitions of Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 are unqualified Leviticus 20 demands the death penalty. Wouldn’t that be unjust to the exploited? b. Romans 1:27 Equally absolute prohibition The contrast is not between exploitative and non- exploitative homosexual behavior, but between heterosexual and homosexual behavior B) The Bible primarily condemns homosexuality because of its threat to male dominance Homosexual relations undermined the prevailing cultural pattern of male dominance in the ancient world Biblical writers and Fathers absorbed these values Response: 1. The key reason for rejecting homosexuality was based on “fittedness” of sexual organs. a. Anatomical clues cannot be ignored. b. “[Homosexual behavior] attempts a merger that nature never intended, that is, for which complimentary sexual organs were not provided. It amounts to a complaint against the ‘gendered body that God/nature gave.’” 1 C) Homosexuality has a genetic component that the writers of the Bible did not realize. Homosexuality is genetically determined, and it is obvious that they are “born that way” Response: 1. 1993 Dean Hamer study2 “We have not found the gene—which we don’t think exists—for sexual orientation.”3 “There will never be a test that will say for certain whether a child will be gay. We know that for certain.”4 2. A theory of genetically determined behavior does not coincide with scientific assessments of the role of genes: “Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans.”5 3. There is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is. The majority of respected scientists now believe that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.6 a. "[M]any scientists share the view that orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors." American Psychological Association7 b. "At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of] homosexuality is that multiple factors play a role." "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay 8 c. "Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality." Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist9 d. "I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors." Sociologist Steven Goldberg10 D) Isn’t it cruel to require homosexuals not to act on their desire? Response: 1. Everyone is called to chastity. 2. Heterosexuals must limit desire to one partner—some men insist this is impossible due to strong sexual desires. Is it cruel to expect monogamy from heterosexual men? 3. “The bottom line is no biblical writer regarded individual ‘self-realization,’ ‘self-fulfillment,’ or ‘self-gratification’ as a good that allows one to disregard clear norms for sexual behavior.”11 E) There are only a few biblical texts which speak of homosexuality; therefore it is a marginal issue in the Bible. Response: 1. Frequency does not determine the degree of importance. 2. Even so, the limited number of “texts are part of a much larger biblical worldview that consistently portrays one model for sexual relations, that between a man and a woman in lifelong partnership.”12 3. “To say that there are only a few texts in the Bible that do not condone homosexual conduct is a monumental understatement of the facts. The reverse is a more accurate statement: there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible that would even remotely suggest that same-sex unions are any more acceptable than extramarital or premarital intercourse, incest, or bestiality.”13 F) We do not follow all of the injunctions in the Bible now, so why should those of homosexual conduct be binding? 1. Divorce: trajectory for change revealed in Bible itself: a. Matthew 5:32, 19:19: exception with sexual immorality b. I Corinthians 7:12: believers who were married to unbelievers could divorce c. few in the church today “celebrate” divorce as a positive good; it is rather the lesser of two evils d. Divorce is not normally a recurring or repetitive action, unlike homosexuality. 2. Slavery: a poor analogy “The New Testament never affirms slavery as an institution; the best that can be said is that it tolerates slavery and regulates it even in Christian households.”14 G) Look at all the mutually loving, monogamous relationships Response: 1. Monogamous relationships are the exception, not the rule a. Survey of 2,500 men15: 2% had sex with one male partner 57% had sex with more than 30 male partners 35% had sex with more than 100 male partners b. Study done by a gay couple of the pattern of “stable gay couples”16 Out of 156 couples, only 7 had remained monogamous within the first six years of the relationship “Consensus among the couples interviewed was that the heterosexual model of monogamy did not work for gay relationships.” 4. Comments on monogamy by leading gay advocates a. “To adapt heterosexual relations [to homosexual ones] is … an act of oppression.” 17 b. “[M]arriage should be made available to everyone…But within this model there is plenty of scope for cultural differences. There is something baleful about the attempts of some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and lesbians into an uncritical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual normality.”18 H) Since we are all sinners anyway, why single out the sin of same-sex intercourse? 1. The logic of this argument would have the church never taking a stand against sin and evil. Essentially promoting toleration of sin.19 2. Selective toleration: who among those tolerant of homosexual sex would advocate for pedophilia, incest, polygamy, spousal abuse, racism, etc.?20 3. I Corinthians 5 One of the believers sleeping with his stepmother Some ‘enlightened’ Corinthians expressed support for this conduct Paul’s advice: expel the member from the Church for two reasons: a. So the Church would not take a lax attitude towards sin b. So the offender might repent and be saved from judgment 4. Negative effects of societal endorsement of homosexuality c. “Will lead to an increase in the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, which in turn will lead to a larger number of people afflicted with serious health problems and shortened life expectancy.”21 d. Health data: new AIDS cases between 1981-199922 Homosexual males are 2% of the population, but have accounted for about 60% of all adult/adolescent AIDS cases, and 84% of those are due to sexual activity.23 e. What explains this high percentage for homosexual men? The nature of homosexual sex is inherently unhealthy, e.g., anal sex. The frequency of sexual encounters. 5. “Homosexuals experience significantly higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse, major depression, and thoughts of suicide and suicide attempts.”24 a. Societal rejection of homosexuals is a factor. b. Yet the “significantly higher rates of substance abuse documented for homosexuals in San Francisco (as compared to heterosexuals in San Francisco) suggests that pinning the lion’s share of the blame on societal homophobia is unfair.”25 c. Alternative reasons:26 Related to the compulsive, obsessive or addictive needs for self- soothing that made same-sex intercourse an appealing form of sexual expression in the first place. Inherent deficiencies in same-sex unions: Endemic dearth of long-term, monogamous relationships An inability to procreate with one’s same-sex partner Dismal association of same-sex intercourse with debilitating, sometimes terminal, sexually transmitted diseases Shame and guilt over one’s abnormal and unnatural sexual practice (from realization of visible evidence of same- sex discomplimentarity) I) If homosexuals are willing to take such risks, why should heterosexuals care?27 1. Hardly a compassionate response on the part of society to ignore the obvious health risks, let alone laud participation in same-sex intercourse by those with a homosexual orientation 2. Enormous health costs generated by same-sex activity are borne by the whole society, not by the homosexual community alone. 3. Ignoring the health risks of same-sex intercourse mistakenly assumes a rigid dividing wall preventing any sexual contact between homosexuals and heterosexuals. 4. Far-reaching effects of societal approval a. Societal approval of same-sex intercourse will probably increase both the number of homosexuals and the incidence of same-sex intercourse in the population. This in turn will lead to an inevitable exposure of larger segments of the population to serious health risks. b. Societal approval will lead to greater permissiveness as regards sexual promiscuity. Homosexual expression is harmful to sexual mores and the maintenance of stable families in a heterosexual society. Typical homosexual behavior undermines society’s standards for sexual fidelity Acceptance of homosexuality by the wider society seems to require acceptance of patterns of irresponsible and unstable sexual behavior prevailing among homosexuals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stein CV2018
    ARLENE J. STEIN Department of Sociology, Rutgers University 045 Davison Hall, Douglass Campus, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 [email protected] EDUCATION 1993 Ph.D., 1985 M.A., Sociology, University of California, Berkeley 1980 B.A. History, Amherst College APPOINTMENTS Professor, Sociology, Rutgers University, 2011- Associate Professor, Sociology, Rutgers University, 2001-11 Graduate Faculty, Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University, 2001- Associate Professor, Sociology, University of Oregon, September 2000-June 2001 Assistant Professor, Sociology, University of Oregon, September 1994-June 2000 Lecturer, Sociology, University of Essex (UK), January 1993-July 1994 RESEARCH INTERESTS Gender, sexuality, intimacy, LGBT studies, political culture, subjectivities, social movements, collective memory, public sociology, ethnography, narrative analysis. PUBLICATIONS Books Unbound: Transgender Men and the Remaking of Identity, Pantheon, 2018. Gender, Sexuality, and Intimacy: A Contexts Reader (Jodi O’Brien, co-editor), Sage, 2017. Going Public: A Guide for Social Scientists (with Jessie Daniels), University of Chicago Press, 2017. Reluctant Witnesses: Survivors, Their Children, and the Rise of Holocaust Consciousness, Oxford University Press, 2014. PROSE Award in Sociology and Social Work, Honorable Mention. Shameless: Sexual Dissidence in American Culture, New York University Press, 2006. A. Stein - 2 January 19, 2018 Sexuality and Gender (Christine Williams, co-editor), Blackwell, 2002. The Stranger Next Door: The Story of a Small Community’s Battle Over Sex, Faith, and Civil Rights, Beacon Press, 2001. Ruth Benedict Award, American Anthropological Association. Honor Award, American Library Association. Gustavus Myers Human Rights Book Award, Honorable Mention. Sex and Sensibility: Stories of a Lesbian Generation, University of California Press, 1997. Excerpted in 10 volumes in US, UK, Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Nf28 10Reviews 0
    THE TROUBLE WITH NORMAL Michael Wyeld Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, Picador. London 1995, £14.99 hardback. The press have begun to use Andrew Sullivan as a touchstone and soundbite whenever the need to discuss 'the homosexual question' arises. He has become so recognisable as a celebrity, particularly in the United States, that he has joined the likes of Miles Davis, John Wayne, Sonic Youth and Leonard Bernstein in posing for advertisements for clothing giant The Gap. The press release for his book, written by Sullivan's press agent at Hobsbawm l\1acaula) Communications Limited, introduces the themes evident in press reviews. which creates a series of questions in its own way. For example, do the pres� actually read the books they review? The implication in press release is that Sullivan, the editor of the New Republic, is now a welcome spokesmodel for homosexuals in Europe and America. Andrew Sullivan . has written the most important book about homosexuality ever to be published: Virtually Normal, a crystal-clear exploration of the arguments about homosexuality from the Catholil Church to today's liberal and conservative politics. In this era of controversy about homosexuality, from gay marriage to gay, in the military, Andrew Sullivan's Virtually Normal will set off an unprecedented debate. In the corporate publicity business anything can be made to seem credible and interesting, so it is no surprise that after actually reading Sullivan's book, it i� nothing like 'the most important book about homosexuality ever to be published.' Nor does the book discuss 'the controversy about homosexuality.
    [Show full text]
  • "Gay Community, Gay Identity and the Translated Text"
    Article "Gay Community, Gay Identity and the Translated Text" Keith Harvey TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, vol. 13, n° 1, 2000, p. 137-165. Pour citer cet article, utiliser l'information suivante : URI: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/037397ar DOI: 10.7202/037397ar Note : les règles d'écriture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domaines du savoir. Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter à l'URI https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Université de Montréal, l'Université Laval et l'Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. Érudit offre des services d'édition numérique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998. Pour communiquer avec les responsables d'Érudit : [email protected] Document téléchargé le 12 février 2017 03:07 Gay Community, Gay Identity and the Translated Text Keith Harvey [...] until we organise ourselves block by neighbourhood by city by state into a united visible community that fights back, we're doomed. (Larry Kramer (1985) The Normal Heart: Act Two, Scene Thirteen, London, Methuen, p. 77) [...] le traducteur est cet individu qui représente, dans sa pulsion de traduire, toute une communauté dans son rapport avec une autre communauté et ses œuvres. (Antoine Berman (1984) L'Épreuve de Vétranger: culture et traduction dans l'Allemagne romantique, Paris, Gallimard, p. 283) In this article1, I wish to argue that the translation of texts whose subject matter is homosexual experience and struggle raises complex issues with regard to the notions of "gay community" and "gay identity".
    [Show full text]
  • Perceived Homosexuals: Looking Gay Enough for Title VII Brian Soucek
    American University Law Review Volume 63 | Issue 3 Article 2 2014 Perceived Homosexuals: Looking Gay Enough for Title VII Brian Soucek Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Soucek, Brian. "Perceived Homosexuals: Looking Gay Enough for Title VII." American University Law Review 63, no.3 (2014): 715-788. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Perceived Homosexuals: Looking Gay Enough for Title VII Keywords Appearance discrimination, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII, Discrimination -- Law & legislation, Assimilation (Sociology) -- Social aspects, LGBT people -- United States -- Legal status, laws, etc., Gender stereotypes -- Psychological aspects, Human sexuality & law This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol63/iss3/2 SOUCEK.OFF.TO.WEBSITE (DO NOT DELETE) 4/2/2014 2:43 PM PERCEIVED HOMOSEXUALS: LOOKING GAY ENOUGH FOR TITLE VII BRIAN SOUCEK* Under the conventional view of Title VII, gay and lesbian workers can bring discrimination claims based on gender stereotyping but not sexual orientation. This Article analyzes 117 court cases on gender stereotyping in the workplace in order to show that the conventional view is wrong. In cases brought by “perceived homosexuals,” courts distinguish not between gender stereotyping and sexual orientation claims, but between two ways that violations of gender norms can be perceived: either as something literally seen or as something cognitively understood.
    [Show full text]
  • British Conservatism, Family Law and the Problem of Change
    PSA Annual Conference 2014, Midland Hotel, Manchester Conservatives and Conservatism Specialist Group Panel One: Constitutionalism, Rights and the Law in British Conservatism From ‘Pretended Family Relationship’ to ‘Ultimate Affirmation’: British Conservatism and the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships Andrew Gilbert Principal Lecturer in Law, Anglia Ruskin University PhD Candidate, Faculty of Laws, UCL The legal regulation of the family in a liberal state often gives rise to controversy. It is also an area where conservative commitments to tradition and institutions are tested in the face of (proposed) innovations in family law and policy. How to deal with non- heterosexuality has been a particular source of tension within the body of postwar Conservatism, laying bare the authoritarian and libertarian dispositions at war in its members. This paper will first sketch out the Conservative Party’s record on homosexual law reform since the 1980s, and then go on to consider arguments around the legal recognition of same-sex relationships in relevant political thought. This discussion will then inform the examination of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. The article concludes by observing that, while there were some similarities in the Party’s approach to the two Bills, conservative arguments in favour of the legal recognition of same-sex relationships were more readily articulated in the civil partnership debates chiefly because it was seen as an evolutionary innovation and there was no existing institution which would be the subject of change. How Conservatives perceived notions of change in the legislation was indicative of whether the Bills would attract their support (and vice versa), signifying the limited utility of a classical conservative understanding of change as a practical theory for supporting major social developments.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense of Marriage Act: Congress's Use of Narrative in the Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage
    NOTES THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: CONGRESS'S USE OF NARRATIVE IN THE DEBATE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CHARLES J. BUTLER* All this rhetoric ... is an attempt to evade the basic question of whether the law of this country should treat homosexual relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships.... Should we tell the children of America that we as a society believe there is no moral difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships? Shall we tell the children of America that in the eyes of the law, the parties to a homosexual union are entitled to all the rights and privileges and benefits that have always been reserved for a man and a woman united in marriage? -Representative William Canady, sponsor, Defense of Marriage Act, July 11, 1996 INTRODuCrIoN President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act' (DOMA) at midnight on September 21, 1996.2 This law permits states to refuse recognition to "any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State... respecting a relationship between persons of the same '3 sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State." Further, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse," for purposes of federal statutes and regulations, to make clear that they refer solely to relationships between persons of the opposite sex.4 The House of Representatives passed the measure 342 to 67.5 The Senate passed it 85 to 14.6 * I would like to thank Professors Sarah Bums, David Richards, and the late Tom Stoddard; the staff of the New York University Law Review; and my partner, Stephen Tamburo.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Reasoning of Family Law: the Case of Same-Sex Marriage, 38 Loy
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 38 Article 7 Issue 2 Winter 2007 2007 The orM al Reasoning of Family Law: The aC se of Same-Sex Marriage Helen M. Alvaré Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Family Law Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Helen M. Alvaré, The Moral Reasoning of Family Law: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage, 38 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 349 (2007). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol38/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Moral Reasoning of Family Law: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage Helen M. Alvar( I. INTRODUCTION Leading communities of faith in the United States are on record opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most well known opponents are the members of what have been called the "Abrahamic faiths"l: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Many Ameri- cans likely believe that Abrahamic groups base their opposition to same-sex marriage solely upon their scriptures, which they believe to be the revealed word of God. Indeed, the written scriptures of each of the Abrahamic faiths do specifically prohibit homosexual behavior.2 Yet there is more to these faiths' opposition to legally recognized same-sex unions: there are fundamental differences between Abrahamic believers and supporters of same-sex marriage about how lawmaking regarding human sexual relations should be approached.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesbigay Identity As Commodity
    LesBiGay Identity as Commodity David M. Skover & Kellye Y. Testyt This Essay explores the deep dissonance that exists today between the validation of American LesBiGays in the commercial marketplace and their devaluation in politicaland legal arenas, and questions the failure of legal scholars and civil rights activists to account meaningfully for this dissonance in their theories andpractices. In America's popular culture, LesBiGay identities abound. In its po- litical culture, however, they emerge more tentatively. The commercial and entertainment industries increasingly commodify and celebrate LesBiGay identities. The courts and legislatures generally discount and condemn them. Thus, there is a deep dissonance between the validation of LesBiGay identities in the economic marketplace of items and ideas, and their de- valuation in the legal arena of rights and remedies. Such a dissonancefos- ters a fragmented sense of what LesBiGay identities are, and whether or how they are valued. Surprisingly, this schizoid treatment of LesBiGay identity is largely ignored or misunderstood by legal theorists and practitioners.Typically, they look primarily to politics and law for the paths to LesBiGay self- realization and social inclusion. The academy and activists have yet to ap- preciate that consumer-driven corporatism, commercial entrepreneurship, and the fetishes andfantasies of the mass media are unleashingpowerful culturalforces that will influence, for better or worse, the LesBiGay quest for liberty and equality. For if"the business ofAmerica is business," then surely the Americanizationof the LesBiGay identity is business, too. Copyright © 2002 David M. Skover and Kellye Y. Testy. t David Skover and Kellye Testy are friends and professorial colleagues at Seattle University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Same-Sex Marriage and Simulacra: Exploring Conceptions of Equality
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 1998 Same-Sex Marriage and Simulacra: Exploring Conceptions of Equality Heather Hughes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Family Law Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Same-Sex Marriage and Simulacra: Exploring Conceptions of Equality Heather Lauren Hughes* The prospect of same-sex marriage has provoked divergent responses from gay rights proponents. Some consider the right to marry an essential part of equal protection and the single most important step towards equal- ity for gay people.1 "Equality" in this context means consistent legal treatment for all regardless of sexual orientation, in hopes that the exercise of 2 legal rights will force greater acceptance of lesbian and gay people. However, other pro-gay activists warn that declaring equal rights is an assimilation decree: a demand that gays and lesbians embrace institutions modeled on the heterosexual, monogamous relationship and achieve equal treatment only as analogous to heterosexual "counterparts."3 Still others criticize the idea of identity politics itself as reinforcing minority catego- ries defined through marginalization and promoting an essentialized vi- sion of minority groups that suppresses diversity and inequalities within categories.4 *B.A., University of Chicago, 1995. J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School, 1998. I would like to thank the editors of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Professor Gerry Frug, and Terry Hughes for their invaluable help. ISee, e.g., ANDREW SULLIVAN, VIRTUALLY NORMAL 185 (1995) (stating that "[i]f nothing else were done at all, and gay marriage were legalized, ninety percent of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality would have been achieved"); WILLIAM N.
    [Show full text]
  • Gay Community, Gay Identity and the Translated Text Keith Harvey
    Document generated on 09/29/2021 2:10 p.m. TTR Traduction, terminologie, re?daction Gay Community, Gay Identity and the Translated Text Keith Harvey Idéologie et traduction Article abstract Ideology and Translation Gay Community, Gay Identity and the Translated Text — In this paper, the Volume 13, Number 1, 1er semestre 2000 author explores the multiple intersections of the notion "gay community" and "gay identity" with the problematic of translation. First, the notions of URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/037397ar "community" and "identity" themselves are explored for their theoretical, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/037397ar political and personal ramifications for the gay subject. It is argued that the two notions engage in a constant process of redefinition in relation to each other and, in particular, that they can be seen to overlap if their respective See table of contents concrete/imagined and internal/external dimensions are taken account of. The author goes on to suggest how translated literature represents a crucial site for the gay person's elaboration of a distinct subjectivity. Then, an example Publisher(s) (Spanish-English) is given of a text whose exploration of emerging gay selfhoof is enhanced in translation. Finally, a passage (English-French) is studied in its Association canadienne de traductologie source and target versions in order to identify the pressures that different cultural conceptions of sexual identity bring to bear upon textual products. ISSN 0835-8443 (print) 1708-2188 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Harvey, K. (2000). Gay Community, Gay Identity and the Translated Text. TTR, 13(1), 137–165.
    [Show full text]
  • Fareed's Briefing Book
    FAREED’S BRIEFING BOOK 04-04-2010 THOMAS FRIEDMAN Thomas Friedman is a best-selling author and a three- time Pulitzer- Prize winning columnist for the New York Times. Friedman was born in Minneapolis on July 20, 1953. He attended Brandeis University and received his bachelor’s degree in Mediterranean studies in 1975. In 1978, he received a Master of Philosophy degree in Modern Middle East Studies from Oxford. Three years later, Friedman joined the New York Times. He was appointed Beirut bureau chief in 1982 and in 1984 he was transferred from Beirut to Jerusalem, where he served as Israel bureau chief until 1988. Friedman was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting in 1983 for his work in Lebanon and again in 1988 for his work while in Israel. In 1995, Friedman became the New York Times’ foreign-affairs columnist and in 2002 he won his third Pulitzer Prize for commentary. In 2005, he was elected as a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board. BOOKS: Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How it Can Renew America. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century From Beirut to Jerusalem The Lexus and the Olive Tree ARTICLES: Hobby or Necessity? New York Times A Tea Party Without Nuts New York Times America’s Real Dream Team New York Times Let’s Fight Over a Big Plan New York Times MORE: Here are the rest of Thomas Friedman’s opinion pieces in the New York Times Here is the Thomas Friedman website Here are Friedman’s 2002 Pulitzer Prize winning columns Here are Friedman’s recent Foreign Affairs columns ANDREW SULLIVAN Andrew Sullivan is an author, journalist, and widely-read blogger.
    [Show full text]
  • NORMAL and NORMALLER Beyond Gay Marriage
    NORMAL AND NORMALLER Beyond Gay Marriage Michael Warner There are no societies which do not regulate sex, and thus all societies create the hope of escaping from such regulations. --Michel Foucault Yo evaluate the policy question of gay marriage is, implicitly or explicitly, to make judgments about what sex is, whether states can or should regulate it, and how the intimate life of pleasure and affect does or does not matter publicly. Deciding whether gay marriage is a good thing quickly involves questions that are at once practical and theoretical: Do gay people yearn to be normal in a way that might be satisfied by marriage? Or is the idea of normal gays oxymoronic? If so, is it because the repetition or performativity of norms renders them unstable, as some queer theory suggests? Or is it because there are historical contradictions among sexual norms that cannot he resolved by broader access to matrimony? Is sex normal? Is it normal to want to be normal? Or is there a deepening rift between those who in some important sense aspire to be normal and those who either aspire otherwise or have no choice-that is, between normal gays and queers? Does an institution like marriage change the people to whom it is extended, or is it that the entry of gay people into marriage would change the meaning of marriage? These world- historical judgments are the often unrecognized subtext of queer theory and are misrecognized when taken to be simply theoretical.1 Let us suppose, then, that the significance of marriage for queers might still be posed as a question.
    [Show full text]